Reading the comments is hilarious. That "healthy 34 year-old male with minor sports injuries" was exactly me when I was 34. Then I hit my out-of-pocket max 7 out of the next 10 years and exceeded a million in insurance spend twice due to a whole lot of major surgeries. It also feels male-centric. Surely pregnancy and childbirth are all but guaranteed to put you over an out-of-pocket max, especially with how common c-sections are these days.
Indeed, healthy or not, once you hit 40s .. the number of friends/family/self dealing with accidents/injuries/serious illness/death grows exponentially.
OP is a privileged take, yes. If you touch grass in poverty spaces, disability spaces, etc., there are a lot of preventable things that could be done or mitigations that could be made that would reduce future costs to society and individuals in incredible ways but are not done because people lack the resources to pursue them. The insurance model is flawed in practice for young, healthy, male IT workers yes, but that's just a testament to how broadly flawed it is that even those positions of privilege are being failed by it.
Big picture: As a society we are failing to make investments in population health that would pay off and an industry exists in a position that it is directly antagonistic to social good. Medical bankruptcies when an under-insured person has a catastrophe is a failure. A person avoiding preventative or corrective care that will improve their future because in the present they need to pay rent instead is a failure. The market dynamic on private insurance creates pressures that produce these failures as a matter of course. Maybe single-state-payer isn't a perfect way to do this (I am pro-social but also a minarchist), but the private insurance model is obviously worse, and there's probably some solution to the holistic problem but we're incredibly bad at whole-system and whole-population thinking, accounting for "undesirables", and probability around unlikely catastrophe, (and propagandized into being even worse at these things than human psychology alone would allow) so any solution which is optimal is likely to be incredibly unpopular because at the individual optimistic case level it'll feel like it's "infantilizing" people or creating individual disincentives for "repsonsibility" or whatever, and that's before we get to the part where we have large populations of people who are so comfortable with hierarchical systems of exploitation that they are afraid improving things substantially means their currently-comfortable above-water status in the pile of drowning rats might be threatened.
And then you have to wonder how many operations are done just to bill insurance companies money. I have injured my shoulder(here in the UK) and I saw a specialist shoulder surgeon who basically said that the state of the art research into these kinds of injuries is to just leave them alone and let them heal - but if you were in the US you would have had two operations on it already because they just love operating on things that don't need operating on for dubious medical benefit because they would charge 100k for each operation, easy.